I did an analysis a few years ago on fullbacks. Generally speaking I found that in teams that conceded more points, fullbacks had worse tackle efficiencies. There were some outliers, but it was also near impossible to factor in items like defending line breaks vs on-line defence, whether or not the fullback played more in line or out back, whether they played other positions during matches etc.

Two years ago Tedesco had one of the worst tackle efficiencies of all FBs, as bad as Ben Barba for Sharks. But Tedesco had somewhat of an excuse, that Tigers leaked a lot more points than Sharks did that GF year, hence he may have had to do more difficult mopping up.

Ahh they’ve tried offloading Woods. No one wants him. Mbye is the only player they were really willing to trade that another club wanted.

Parra wanted Klemmer, made an offer, the dogs rejected it, and I am sure Jackson would have attracted interest from quite a few, but the dogs chose to sell Mbye, great move.

Because Klemmer and Jackson were players that were off limits. Mbye was obviously not a priority. Don’t know why we’re complaining

That was Ennis' point. Mbye was the player who should have been off limits in preference to Klemmer and Jackson. In Ennis' view he was more important to the team and their current strengths/weaknesses.

Oh, and I certainly am not complaining - great pick up for us. FB has been an obvious problem for us all year, as has the DH role. Both 'sorted'. Now we just need the big boys up front to start kicking some butt again.

Interesting numbers. I don't get the calculation for Noffo, though. If tackle efficiency is 'tackles made' divided by 'tackles attempted' expressed as a percentage then his percentage would be 70.4% [38 / (38+16)]. Of course I could be wrong about the formula.

Ahh they’ve tried offloading Woods. No one wants him. Mbye is the only player they were really willing to trade that another club wanted.

Parra wanted Klemmer, made an offer, the dogs rejected it, and I am sure Jackson would have attracted interest from quite a few, but the dogs chose to sell Mbye, great move.

Because Klemmer and Jackson were players that were off limits. Mbye was obviously not a priority. Don’t know why we’re complaining

That was Ennis' point. Mbye was the player who should have been off limits in preference to Klemmer and Jackson. In Ennis' view he was more important to the team and their current strengths/weaknesses.

I agree with Ennis on this one. I think Canterbury have treated Klemmer / Jackson the way they have, after the fallout from releasing Graham and Reynolds. Fans don't appear as tied to Mbye, so whilst it is potentially a weaker strategic situation, I can imagine ever worse fall-out if Josh Jackson is let go.

A counter-argument could be that Dogs are in the doldrums so might as well rip off the bandaid and make all the tough decisions at once.

I've always been of the opinion that go-forward is cheaper to pay and maintain than points-scoring. I.e. there are lots of meatheads around who can cart up a footy with reasonable ability, and there's not much skills training involved in it - just courage, toughness, stamina and size/strength. The difference between best and worst forwards isn't so large as best and worst spine players.

Certainly if the forwards are being dominated then your spine can't operate well, but there's normally 7 blokes contributing to the go-forward, so the workload should be distributed.

It really depends on what the Dogs thought about Mbye's longer-term potential. Maybe they are frustrated with what he's produced to date and think he's had his time. Maybe they feel they can spend his money better elsewhere, i.e. release an attacking footballer and buy another one.

Maybe the Tigers deal with Mbye was the most reasonable outcome; potential suitors for Klemmer or Jackson may have been very aggressive in negotiations. Tigers may have been more keen to take on Mbye than any other club, to suit our particular needs.